Problem with 400mm L 5.6 clarity

[pahranagatman]

On image tests my 400mm L 5.6 is performing significantly less sharp than my new 100-400mm lense. The only think I can think of that would have damaged the 400 was condensaton in the body from temperature changes. Shots are all tribod and cable triggered. No filters on either lens. This is of course cropped way in. Any ideas? The 400 is about 9 months old. Can it be cleaned internally?

[pahranagatman]

yoramp,

*Just want to check that you're not making the stupid mistake I did that started this thread. Are you far enough away from the subject? Need to set the focus length different maybe?

*Are you sure it's the lens and not the camera? Is there an opportunity to test similar lenses and bodies? I had a 60D that started doing weird things like that. Pictures looked OK with 55mm lense, but not 75-300mm. I don't know if it was a small drop in a padded bag, the 300mm lens I had, or Nevada heat that messed it up. Insurance people just said there were no parts and sent me money. I've read reports of the 60D doing weird focusing problems which is sad because I loved the flip screan. 

Good luck. 

[yoramp]

Hi, Thanks a lot for this information. Ahm.. yep, I'm not sure at all who or what is the cause of that ugly blur. I guess I'll better check them both. To say the truth, I'm right now in the mood of replacing my whole geer to Nikon system and try to get to the D800. I'm not so happy with replacing my 60D I liked it very much. but if she/it is the problem I''ll nock it out. When I look to the 7D or the 6D it dosen't look worth the efforts - what do you think?

Yoram      

[ebiggs1]

"...  I look to the 7D or the 6D it dosen't look worth the efforts - what do you think?"

Only you can decide if the difference is worth it. But no xxD is comparable to a xD, IMHO, as always.

Look at what the "pros" choose. This is the photographers pit at the last Super Bowl. 75% of the equipment is Canon. The remaining is not only Nikon but everything else. Now you decide!

[yoramp]

WOW, great picture! I guess you're right, you can see that a lot. That is convincing.. even though you can never know if it is great P.R. work or really quality differences. I used to work a lot with the D70 - it wasen'l too friendly to say the least, but very good in quality image.

[nerys]

I just got a 100-400 L for my 5d mark ii

My p&s takes sharper images (little z200 casio) quite upset as the $900 i spent is a literal fortune to me.

How do i do this micro adjustment thing? Is there a good url for how to use this camera also stuck in d+ so cant go below iso 200.

Thanks!

[ebiggs1]

Reset the camera to factory defaults.  Remove all the batteries for a while, overnight is good.  There are two!

The EF 100-400mm zoom is not the sharpest lens made but it is certainly better than any P&S!  From your post I would very much advise you not do any micro-adjust, at least not until you are more advanced.

Most of the problems when people complain about a camera/lens combo, is the user and not the gear.  So much greater info would be required to assess which that is for you.

Can you post a sample or at least give some details on how and what you are shooting?  Plus the settings you are using?

[nerys]

i was just shooting a car maybe 30 meters away and the image was abysmal i could even see in the viewfinder it was "not right"

I found the coinc cell backup removed it. D+ was still their but some googling and i found the serting to turn that off.

Inside i took some shots switching between my old l 100-300 and the new l 100-400

Seems to shoot much better now. Double batt reset may have done it. I will leave both out tonight again to be sure and set up some real testing later this week time allowing.

I will post some samples later too. At work just now.

For some of what i shoot naramlive.com and rocketrylive.com though all of those are with my xti's and casio f1

[nerys]

Playing with it on break still can not get clean shots. i noticed up close i get half clear half blurry (shot a power neter maybe 2 meters away) half of it is crystal clear. Half blury. Could the dof even at 5.6 be that thin? I cranked it up to 22 and it was all crystal clear. So either the af is slightly off or the dof of that thin ? Does that seem right to you guys? Will post some pics when i get home.

I am astonished at how nosie free images from this camera are even at iso 3200. Amazing.

[ebiggs1]

Let me get this clear.  You shot, "...  (shot a power neter maybe 2 meters away) ... " ?  If so, that is nearly at close focus of the lens if it is not.  400mm@f5.6 is going to have an extremely shallow DOF.  I am going to guess less that a quarter of an inch.

If this is true, I am going to recommend you do a lot of learning on how to use this lens.  Big tele's have a learning curve to get the best results from them.  Besides they must be rock steady as 1/500 is a minimun SS for such a lens. 

I suggest you get it on a tripod. On a bright daylighted go outside and give it a go.  Set ISO at 800 so to keep the SS high.

What you are doing is proving nothing.  You can even use TV and fix the SS to 1/500 and even 1/1000.

[nerys]

Ouch. did I rub you the wrong way or something? it was unintentional I assure you. I was actually not aware the dof changed with distance quite so much or could be quite so shallow. I am used to such shallow dof with my 800mm mirror lens (pain in the A$$ to focus but man when you get it it is spectacular) but my cheapy 75-300 has ZERO such issues with DOF in the situations I have been using it.

is there that much a difference between 75-300 aps and 100-400L and Full Frame ?

would explain the half blury image (I was not perpendicular to it)

I was in the back of the store in the car just playing with it. my usualy prey is a rocket 200-500 ft away from me.

Not sure what you mean by SS 1/500th to get a good shot I have already done handhel shots at 1/13th with the lens stabilization off (never had one with stabilization so did not turn it on) handheld and they came out just fine ??

the stabilization sure does help though!! did some 1/4 second shots once I figure that function out. nice. very nice.

it seems "up close" the lens is great (anything within 20ft of me) but anything futther away goes to crap unless I jack up the aperature.

I shot a label about 25-30ft away on another power meter and I could not read it with my own eyes and could not read it at 400mm.

I jacked the aperature to 22 and I was able to read the label. it seems further away it is simply not focusing on the right spot. on some targets you can clearly "see" that the focus is just wrong. I was shooting a triplet of road signs at our entrance about 60 or 70 feet away at a guess figuring good high contract subject.

I kept depressing trying to get it to lock in but it always looked "wrong" you could even see a "double image" on the edge of the sign IE it was not in focus.

I can't upload any images tonight. DOLT I forgot I got a higher performance CF card for this camera instead of my usual SD card in CF adapter. so I can't actually download anything until I find one of my old CF readers 🙂 or reshoot some images with an SD in CF adapter until I get a reader.

I may not be an expert in the lingo etc.. but I do know how to use one of these camera's and have a lot of experience with what is right and not right.

I am hoping this is just a "new tech have to learn new tricks" kind of thing but I would think set it for auto point shoot should be simple enough. it IS just a camera afterall. I have half a dozen of them.

Do you have a good suggestion on where I can start with some toots on using this more advanced equipment? I am going to go hunt down the manual for my mark II (it did not come with one) is there a manual for the lens? (I will check canon's site)

BTW up close it is clearly superior to my 100-300 L lens (both set to 300) but far away it is inferior to that lens. though I have not looked at images on a larger display yet. I will once I download. the 100-300 L is also new to me.